“Either Way, It's Evidence For Evolution!”

In my last post, I discussed the tired complaint of evolutionists that it's not fair to compare living things to created things. I think some people have missed the point, namely that it's precisely because similar created things are not biologically related to each other that we know similarity between creatures is not necessarily evidence that similar, living creatures are biologically related. I'd like to go one step further on that same theme.

I get the concept that animals with similar features could be related via a common ancestor. It's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion. However, we also see similarities in animals that are not closely related according to evolutionary theory. There's the example of marsupial moles and placental moles. Marsupial mammals and placental mammals supposedly split tens of millions of years ago. Marsupial/placental moles are not supposed to be as closely related as humans and chimps are supposed to be yet I believe the different moles resemble each other far more than humans and chimps do. If similarity is supposed to be evidence for common descent, then why are the different moles (who are far more distantly related) more similar than humans/chimps (who are supposed to be more closely related)?

When animals that aren't closely related resemble each other, evolutionists say that it's the result of convergent evolution. They say that form-follows-function and since both moles live in similar environments, over “millions of years” of undirected mutation, they evolved similar traits. The Encyclopedia of Science put it this way, “One of the reasons that convergence happens is that some body structures and shapes are simply the best biological solutions to basic problems in physics.... Convergent animals may look alike but it is easy to show that they are entirely different creatures with very unlike ancestors – their resemblance in appearance is not due to close relationship. The structures which give the resemblance often do not develop from a common feature in an ancestor.”

That's interesting. OK, it's not really that interesting; I mean to say it's revealing. It's an example of evolutionists wanting to have it both ways. Creationists have attempted to point out to evolutionists that similarity is not necessarily evidence of common ancestry. To demonstrate this, we sometimes point to similar created things as examples. Evolutionists object saying it's not fair analogy to compare living things with created things. However, in the case of moles we see two living things that are similar and not closely related. What's their objection now?

So let me get this straight: similar features between creatures could be due to common ancestry (as in humans and chimps) or not due to common ancestry (as in marsupial/placental moles). Is that right? How convenient that, either way, evolutionists still see it as evidence for their theory! It seems to me that evolutionists already know that similarities between creatures is not de facto evidence that they are closely related in an evolutionary sense. We've been trying to tell them that for years! What I wonder is why do they keep trotting out similarities between humans and chimps like it's somehow proof of something?

What we're left with is a bifurcation: similarity is either the result of common ancestry or convergent evolution. They stubbornly leave out the third option – similarity is the result of design!

It's because they're designed that makes it a good analogy!

In my last post, I asked, “How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?” Most people get the joke. My list of possible answers are actual comments that creationists often hear from evolutionists when discussing the subject of evolution so I just applied those same responses to changing light bulbs. I think maybe I should have added an “F” option: “It only takes one evolutionist to change it but he doesn't know how the first light bulb got there because that's not part of the theory.”

Anyway, I posted a link to the post to a creation group on Face Book. One evolutionist responded with his own question: “How many creationists does it take to tell the difference between inanimate objects and animate objects?” He didn't seem to get the joke. Instead, he seemed to be rehashing a usual point made by evolutionists – namely, that it's not a fair analogy to compare living things to created things because created things can't reproduce and, so, can't evolve.

This response is usually used by evolutionists when creationists point out similarities in created things. Evolutionists sometimes claim that similarities between different kinds of animals are due to their evolutionary relatedness. However, creationists correctly point out that things that aren't evolved can also be similar. An airplane, for example, has certain things in common with a car. A bridge has certain things in common with a building. When creationists raise “similar created things” examples, it's then that evolutionists respond by saying that created things are not good analogies of living things because created things don't reproduce.

I wrote a post a couple of years ago talking about this point. In that post, I quoted an evolutionist who used this very objection when Kent Hovind raised the “similar created things” argument. Kent had talked about similarities in different types of bridges and here are the exact words of the evolutionist:

“That has nothing to do with evolution... because a bridge is a horrible analogy to a living thing. I mean, it has nothing in common with a living thing.... And they [living things] reproduce which is one of the fundamental tenets of evolution. I mean, a thing can't evolve unless it reproduces. Here, we're talking about reproducing systems. Explain to me what this has to do with a common Designer because I really don't get it.”

He obviously doesn't get it. Neither did the evolutionist on Face Book get it. As a matter of fact, most evolutionists who use this objection don't get it. Thankfully, I'm here to help them.

Like I've already said, evolutionists often use similarities between animals as evidence of evolution. For example, they say humans and chimps are similar because they share a common ancestor. However, a boat has certain similarities to a car but we know that the boat didn't “evolve” from a car nor did the car “evolve” from a boat. So we see that similarity between two things is not necessarily the product of evolutionary relatedness.

Created things can be similar for various reasons. They might be built using similar materials. They might be built for similar purposes. They might be built by the same person who added his own particular style. But any similarities between various created things are certainly not the result of evolution! In like manner, then, the similarities between a dinosaur and a bird could just as easily be explained by design.

Something that is created does not reproduce. It doesn't share a common ancestor with any other created thing. That's why we point to the similarities between created things as evidence that the similarity between living things isn't de facto evidence for evolution. Pointing out similarities between created things is a fine analogy. It's precisely because they're designed that makes it a good analogy!

Get it?

How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?

I've heard hundreds, maybe thousands of light bulb jokes and I thought I should make one about evolutionists. I can't decide on a punchline, though. What do you think?

How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?

A) None. Individual light bulbs don't change. Populations change.

B) None. Under just the right conditions, a light bulb can just appear uncreated.

C) None. The kind of change we're talking about takes millions of years.

D) None. If the light bulb burned out, it was obviously unfit.

E) None. Creationists are just lying, ignorant, stupid liars and they only want the light bulb changed because they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Feel free to vote in the comments. Maybe someone out there has a better one.

Natural Selection, Evolution, and Watermelons

I live in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville lies on the banks of the Ohio River which borders Indiana. Like many bordering states, the people of Louisville have a sort of friendly rivalry with the people in IN. I could tell you a hundred jokes about Indiana but today I'm only going to tell you one.

One day, a Hoosier (people from IN are called, “Hoosiers”), decided he was going to start his own business. He knew about a farm in KY that grew delicious watermelons so he drove his truck across the river and bought a truck load at the cheap price of 3 for $1. He drove back home and set up a roadside stand where he sold them for 25 cents each!

The watermelons were very popular and the man sold out very quickly. He drove back to KY for more and those too sold out almost immediately. This went on for a couple of weeks and the man began driving back and forth nearly every day for more watermelons. It wasn't long, however, before the man began to notice he had less money after each trip.

The man's father stopped by to see how his son was doing. The struggling marketer told his father how the watermelons were very popular and sold like crazy but he still seemed to be losing money. Of course he also told him about the great price he was getting on the watermelons in KY. The father scratched his head for a while and considered the situation. Suddenly, an idea occurred to him. He slapped his son on the back enthusiastically, “Cheer up, boy, I've got it! What you need to do is buy a bigger truck!”

They say a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it. Where this Hoosier went wrong seems fairly obvious but I'm going to explain it just in case anyone missed it (after all, there may be Hoosiers reading this). He was buying watermelons at 33.3 cents each and selling them for 25 cents. In other words, he was losing 8.3 cents on each watermelon. You will never make money by losing a little bit at a time – it doesn't matter how long you do it. A bigger truck only means he would lose money faster.

Natural selection is an observed phenomenon where traits not suited to the environment are removed from the population. In the famous, peppered moth example of “evolution,” birds would eat light or dark colored moths as environmental factors changed. Over time, the ratio of light/dark moth in the population would change and evolutionists call any type of change, “evolution.” According to evolutionists, these little changes (microevolution) will accumulate over time to become big changes (macroevolution). It's lie number 5 of the five lies evolutionists tell.

My question to evolutionists has always been, “how long would birds have to eat one color of moth until new colors appear?” The significance of the question usually escapes them but the answer is obvious. You cannot create new colors by continuously removing one color. It doesn't matter how long you do it. It would be the same in a population of white and black mice, if someone continuously killed the white mice. Eventually it would be a population of only black mice. The descendant population will have fewer colors than the original population. Duh!

For evolution to occur, new traits have to be added to the population. For a dinosaur to become a bird, you have to add feathers. The supposed first ancestor did not have feathers. Neither did it have hair or scales or even skin. Nor did it have bones, blood, or organs. For a bacterium to become a bird, there must be a continuous parade of novel features added. That is the only way for one kind of creature to become another kind.

Evolutionists love to bring up examples of natural selection and say it's evolution. They believe the change just needs to happen for a long enough time. If natural selection REMOVES traits and evolution requires animals to ACQUIRE traits, then we have a problem. Natural selection is the opposite of evolution. Continuously removing traits will never add traits no matter how long it continues. It's like trying to make money by losing a little bit at a time. The idea that microevolution plus time equals macroevolution is a joke. It's a joke funnier than the one above because the one above is fictional and the evolutionists are serious.

I agree that populations change. I don't agree that “change” over a long time could ever amount to evolution. Time is not the savior of evolution. Time is the “bigger truck” of evolution.